OPINION

Diodayan Ledesma-Cuesta appeals pro se from an order dismissing his petition for a writ for audita querela. Because no substantial question is presented by this appeal, we will summarily affirm the order of the District Court.

In 2001, a jury convicted Ledesma-Cuesta of importation and attempted importation of more than 500 grams of cocaine, possession and attempted possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine on a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and reentry and attempted reentry to the United States after deportation. 1 We affirmed his conviction and sentence. United States v. Ledesma-Cuesta, 347 F.3d 527 (3d Cir. 2003).

In 2005, the District Court denied Le-desma-Cuesta’s motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and we declined to issue a certificate of appealability. C.A. No. 05-5537. In 2010, Ledesma-Cuesta filed a “motion for leave to intervene/reconsideration to be afforded a C.O.A. pursuant L.A.R. 27.5,” which the District Court construed as a motion for reconsideration. The District Court dismissed the motion and we denied his request for a certificate of appealability. C.A. No. 10-4228.

In May 2011, Ledesma-Cuesta filed a “motion for relief of judgment pursuant to title 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) the writ of audita querela.” 2 He argued that his base offense level was incorrectly calculated at the sentencing hearing. The District Court denied the motion, finding that such a challenge must be brought in a § 2255 motion. Ledesma-Cuesta appeals.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The writ of audita querela is *686 available as residual post-conviction relief. Massey v. United States, 581 F.3d 172, 174 (3d Cir. 2009). Thus, relief via a petition for a writ of audita querela is not available where a specific statute addresses the issue at hand. Id. “[T]he means to collaterally challenge a federal conviction or sentence” is through a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, not a petition for a writ of audita querela. Id. Therefore, the District Court did not err in denying Ledesma-Cuesta’s petition for a writ of audita que-rela. 3

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order. Ledesma-Cuesta’s “motion to review statutory interpretation of USSG § 4B1.1 pursuant to Fed. Rules Crim. P(36)” is dismissed.